St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Hood
| Decision Date | 20 January 1900 |
| Citation | 55 S.W. 134,67 Ark. 357 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS, IRON MOUNTAIN & SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. HOOD |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pope Circuit Court, JEREMIAH G. WALLACE, Judge.
Hood sued the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company to recover the statutory penalty for the latter's delay in building stock-guards on either side of an enclosure after being duly notified to do so, thereby causing his meadow to be destroyed by cattle. Plaintiff's testimony showed that, at the time he served the notice on the defendant to put in the stock-guards, he had no enclosure at the points where he wanted the stock-guards placed. He had a field on one side of the track, but had not built his fence across the right of way, and had no enclosure on the other side. Within three or four days after the notice was given he built his fence down to the right of way on both sides but the company neglected for ten days after he had done so to put in the stock-guards.
A judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, from which defendant appealed.
Reversed and remanded.
Dodge & Johnson, for appellant.
Under section 6239, Sand. & H. Digest, requiring railway companies, upon receiving ten days' notice, to construct stock guards whenever they shall enter enclosed lands, there was no obligation upon the appellant to construct such cattle-guards where lands are not enclosed at the time of the notice. Compare 65 Ark. 499 and 59 Ark. 244.
Sections 6238 and 6239 of Sandels & Hill's Digest are as follows: "It shall be the duty of all railroad companies organized under the laws of this state, which have constructed, or may hereafter construct, a railroad which may pass through or upon any enclosed lands of another, whether such lands were enclosed at the time of the construction of such railroad, or were enclosed thereafter, upon receiving ten days' notice in writing from the owner of said lands, to construct suitable and safe stock-guards on either side of said enclosure where said railroads enter said enclosure and to keep the same in good repair."
"Any railroad company failing to comply with the requirements of the preceding section shall be liable to the person or persons aggrieved thereby for a penalty of not less than twenty five dollars nor more than two hundred dollars for each and every offense, to be collected by civil action in any court having jurisdiction thereof."
We need...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Crebbin v. Deloney
-
Choctaw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railroad Company v. State
...Ed.), 661; 75 S.W. 929. Kirby's Dig. § 6595 is a penal statute, and should be strictly construed. 43 Ark. 415; 38 Ark. 519; 40 Ark. 97; 67 Ark. 357. The court erred in its first Robert L. Rogers, Attorney General, for appellee. While, under the rule in 74 Ark. 159, the indictments were insu......
-
St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company v. Hale
... ... This ... is an appeal by a railway company from a judgment rendered ... against it in the ... ...
-
St. Louis, Memphis & Southeastern Railway Co. v. Busick
...L. F. Parker and Orr & Luster, for appellant. The complaint did not state a cause of action. Sand. & H. Dig. §§ 6238, 6239; 72 S.W. 574; 55 S.W. 134; 68 879; 57 Ark. 16; 72 S.W. 574; 47 Ark. 330. Chas. S. Busick, pro se. The complaint was sufficient under the statute. Kirby's Dig. §§ 6644, ......